| Risks - As a rule, documents comprising risks for the company, have unrestricted access, are unprotected from extraction of law enforcement bodies. Limited access and protection of documents are undoubtedly a deterrent factor in the promotion of illegal activities by law enforcement bodies and regulatory bodies (hereinafter - bodies). - Bad reaction (denial, lack of response or absolute performance) on the actions of law enforcement bodies leads to aggression thereof, initiation of criminal proceedings or significant progress in the investigation. - Lack of a clear analysis of the legality of grounds for the inspection of the company by the bodies. Inspection by one or another body can be conducted in a manner and under the law. Most of such inspections do not meet or do not fully comply with legal requirements. - Ignoring forecasting and unavailability to investigative actions (search, seizure, etc.). These actions can be successfully blocked. Ignoring protection of an attorney at law during investigation. - Neglect of non-judicial means of protection during investigation. - Lack of coordination of actions with the bank for protection from seizure. - As a rule, legal opportunities to influence a person conducting the inspection are not taken into consideration. This influence should be found in a plane of other relationships than between an inspector and a subject of the inspection. - Absolute acceptance of circumstances (neglect of court decision about seizure of the documents as a ground for bringing the company's management to criminal responsibility). Recommendations - Securing the advokatory protection of documents that bear the risk of committing actions by supervising and law enforcement bodies (hereinafter - bodies). - Inquiries of the bodies (except for counter inspections), not obligatory for fulfillment. However, applicable legal justification of the refusal to meet the inquiry should be made responding thereto. - As a rule, it becomes known about initiation of criminal proceedings against the company during the investigative actions. That is why such threats (search, seizure, etc.) should not be excluded when there is at least some interest of the bodies. Typically, search, seizure and other actions are held brutally, using intimidation and psychological pressure on the company. In this case participation of the attorney at law is extremely important. This gives a possibility to prevent “dirty” instruments of influence on employees, to control and slow the process, as well as to create grounds for appeal against corresponding actions of the bodies. - Only planned inspections are conducted after a decision of the body, the rest can be conducted only after a court decision. If relevant bodies have such a decision, but there are risks after results of the inspection, you can fulfill the decision of court without creating negative consequences - to allow the inspection without access to the documents. Actions with the bank should be coordinated so that the information about the client would be protected. This can be provided by using an alternative jurisdiction of economic adjudication. L.I.Group provides you with methods of solving such problems. - Depending on the content of the court's decision to seizure the documents, the grounds for criminal responsibility for failure to fulfill thereof should be formed. Formulation “to permit the bodies to seizure” is not a ground for criminal responsibility for the failure of the court's decision. On the contrary, formulation “to bind to provide” is the ground for criminal responsibility. |
